Rita Bathiard v. Islamic Republic of Iran
923 F.3d 1095
D.C. Cir.2019Background
- Six consolidated FSIA terrorism cases arising from the 1983–84 Beirut bombings and the 1998 Nairobi/Dar es Salaam embassy bombings named Iran (and in three suits, Sudan) under the FSIA §1605A terrorism exception.
- Iran repeatedly failed to appear in these suits; plaintiffs moved for default judgment under FSIA §1608(e). Sudan appeared and successfully moved to dismiss some claims as untimely in the district court.
- District courts, sua sponte, raised the §1605A statute-of-limitations issue as to Iran (despite Iran’s complete absence), denied default-judgment motions, and dismissed the complaints as untimely.
- Plaintiffs appealed the dismissals and (in one case) the denial of post-judgment relief; the D.C. Circuit appointed amicus to defend the district courts’ orders.
- The D.C. Circuit framed the sole legal question as whether a federal court may invoke a forfeited §1605A statute-of-limitations defense sua sponte on behalf of an entirely absent foreign sovereign defendant.
- The court reversed, holding district courts lack authority to raise a forfeited timeliness defense sua sponte when the defendant is entirely absent; it vacated the dismissals and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a court sua sponte invoke a forfeited §1605A statute of limitations on behalf of an absent foreign sovereign? | Plaintiffs: District courts lacked authority; party-presentation requires defendant to raise affirmative defenses. | District courts/Appointed Amicus: comity, judicial efficiency, and §1608(e) screening justify sua sponte action. | No. Courts may not raise a forfeited §1605A limitations defense sua sponte for an entirely absent defendant. |
| Is §1605A(b) jurisdictional (allowing courts to raise timeliness sua sponte)? | Plaintiffs: §1605A(b) is nonjurisdictional; defendant’s failure to plead forfeits the defense. | District courts/Sudan (argued in other litigation): statute is jurisdictional (contrary position). | §1605A(b) is nonjurisdictional; timeliness is an affirmative defense that can be forfeited. |
| Does FSIA §1608(e) require courts to consider timeliness before entering default judgment? | Plaintiffs: §1608(e) concerns evidentiary sufficiency for default judgments, not timeliness; it does not authorize sua sponte invocation of forfeited defenses. | Appointed Amicus/District courts: §1608(e) screening imposes institutional duties that justify raising timeliness. | §1608(e) does not authorize courts to raise forfeited statute-of-limitations defenses sua sponte; it governs the quantum/quality of proof for default judgments. |
| Can a court rely on international comity or policy concerns to raise affirmative defenses sua sponte against absent foreign states? | Plaintiffs: FSIA provides the exclusive framework; courts cannot engage in additional comity balancing to override party presentation. | District courts/Appointed Amicus: comity and reciprocal interests counsel caution and may warrant sua sponte consideration. | No. Comity concerns do not permit courts to override forfeiture or depart from the party-presentation principle in cases against absent sovereigns. |
Key Cases Cited
- Owens v. Republic of Sudan, 864 F.3d 751 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (FSIA §1605A is nonjurisdictional and defendant forfeits timeliness defense if not raised)
- Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198 (2006) (AEDPA timeliness may be considered sua sponte in narrow habeas contexts implicating institutional interests)
- Wood v. Milyard, 566 U.S. 463 (2012) (courts of appeals may, in limited circumstances, raise forfeited timeliness defenses where institutional interests are implicated)
- Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392 (2000) (sua sponte res judicata may be appropriate in special circumstances implicating judicial interests)
- Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129 (1987) (appellate courts may in exceptional cases consider forfeited nonexhaustion defenses)
- John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (2008) (statutes of limitations primarily protect defendants from stale claims)
- United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 135 S. Ct. 1625 (2015) (statute-of-limitations rules are jurisdictional only when Congress plainly so indicates)
- Musacchio v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 709 (2016) (clarifying limits of jurisdictional characterization of time bars)
- Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi., 138 S. Ct. 13 (2017) (distinction between forfeiture and waiver)
- Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237 (2008) (principle of party presentation in adversary system)
- Verlinden B.V. v. Cent. Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480 (1983) (FSIA provides comprehensive framework for foreign sovereign immunity)
- Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 138 S. Ct. 816 (2018) (FSIA balances sovereign immunity and accountability)
- NML Capital, Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, 573 U.S. 134 (2014) (courts should not use ad hoc comity balancing to limit FSIA remedies)